Posted
by
samzenpuson Monday December 17, 2012 @01:40PM
from the give-him-a-break dept.

mikejuk writes "As 2012, Alan Turing Year, draws to close a group of highly regarded UK scientists, including Professor Stephen Hawking, have repeated the call for a posthumous pardon for Turing's criminal conviction in a letter to the Telegraph. The letter has re-opened the debate, which is controversial even for those who support the idea that Turing was treated in an unfair and appalling way, was formally acknowledged by the UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown in 2009 when he apologized for the treatment Turing had received. In February Justice Minister Lord McNally rebuffed a 23,000 signature petition for a pardon saying: 'A posthumous pardon was not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offense.'"

An official "pardon" for a joke of a "crime" would just legitimize the "crime", and say "it's ok to be gay, but only if you're a brilliant scientist". The above declaration would, on the other hand, send a much stronger message, and would actually mean something.

What is a crime and what isn't is arbitrary. At the time, the law, said this was a crime, so it was.There is no absolute definition of crime, just what a jurisdiction will classify as crime during a certain time period.Therefore, technically, there is no reason to give a pardon at all.

The thing is, emo people would feel better if a pardon was given, because the previous law was unjust (whatever that means) and therefore changed. So the real question here is the following: shall we throw logic out the window

You will note that I basically agreed with everything you said. (Other than my sarcasm quotes around "crime", which I will stick to.) Yes, it was a "crime" at the time. Therefore, pardoning would be silly, and wouldn't help much with anything, given Turing's long dead, he wouldn't care much. Officially retconning the very existence of the "crime" out, though, while it would do just as little to help Turing, would send the strong message, "we feel this was a terrible idea and are sorry we used to think otherwise." They wouldn't do anything "to make the masses happy", they'd be doing it, at least hopefully, because they *agreed* with those masses and wanted to show their agreement. Yes it was a crime at the time. Yes, the people responsible for sentencing the dude to punishment did exactly what the law said they should have done. But... so?

"we feel this was a terrible idea and are sorry we used to think otherwise."

I understand the first part of this sentence, but I'm completely baffled by the second part.

Who is doing this saying? The government? It was a different government at the time Turing was convicted. So are they trying to say:"we (the current government) feel this was a terrible idea and are sorry previous governments used to feel otherwise"

Why should a current government apologize for the acts of people completely unrelated to

You're still punishing people who were not at fault for those who came before them. The blood money you're calling for comes from the blood of those who are living, not those who are dead. We have a social safety net to help those who might not have been born into opportunity. At various times in our history, Irish, Chinese, and Mexicans have faced challenges due to their origin at various times in our history, and as individuals they have risen above the admittedly unfair situation to succeed.

I never said that blacks today don't have more opportunity now than 200 years ago. What I said was that the economics of the wage theft that occurred then is still evident in the relative wealth of blacks vs. whites.

You can always point out individuals that have done better (notice your examples made their money in the entertainment industry, so too Paul Robeson, Bill 'Bojangles' Robinson, Lena Horne, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods).

But taken in the aggregate, whites have benefited from the wage theft that occurred throughout history. It's becoming more class-based (more whites are getting wages stolen because of laws like Right To Work and such) but race is still a big component of it.

Ever wonder why "Right To Work" laws were first passed in the South in the 1950's, at the beginning of the Civil Rights era?

While I don't believe that direct-payment "reparations" are the answer, to dismiss proponents with "shut up" is to ignore the history of black/white disparity.

Following this logic, if he were still alive and in prison, there would be no reason to release him once his "crime" ceased to be labeled as a "crime."

If he were still in prison when the law was repealed he would automatically have been released but would not get a pardon. Indeed I really don't think that a pardon is appropriate but perhaps for slightly different reasons: pardoning a crime implies you are forgiving the individual who committed the crime. This is the wrong way around. By our modern standards, he committed no crime and so has no need to ask for a pardon. Indeed by petitioning that Turing be pardoning you have to implicitly assume that he d

Lets ignore the fact that the man is dead and instead pretend that he is alive and in prison. How are we "throwing logic out the window" to release a person from prison because the law that put him there was changed/repealed?

No, the real question here is why you think it is ok to incarcerate someone for something that is no longer a crime, just because it was a crime when they did it.

Yes, there is. You claim that we would be "throwing logic out the window" if we were to release a person from prison because the reason for which they were incarcerated is no longer a crime. I for one would love to know how you came to that conclusion.

The only things that matters is what the law says should apply.

So you are saying that you believe we would be "throwing logic out the window" because the law says that people incarcerated of something that is not currently a crime, even if it was a crime when they first did it, must continue to serve their sentence? If

Legally, the prosecution did not commit any error in law and, if they had discretion to prosecute or decline prosecution, it's hard to make a case that they made an error in judgment.

Parliament, representing the people, did their job as the law reflected social norms of the time and it did not violate any "basic rights" of Englishmen as they were understood at the time.

What is needed in this an any other situation where a government, representing the people and acting in good faith, acts in a way that a future generation realizes is just plain wrong, is an apology from the current government "on behalf of" is predecessor and the people it represented.

Parliament can and should come out and say "Many years ago, our country adopted laws and policies which we now know were morally wrong. We apologize for those acts. We cannot undo all of the wrong that was done, but this is what we are doing...." followed by specific details such as nullifying criminal convictions, etc.

By the way, the text from the pardon refusal (taken from here [i-programmer.info]) says

rather than trying to alter the historical context and to put right what cannot be put right, ensure instead that we never again return to those times

While I agree about never returning to those times and I agree that the past cannot be fully "put right," I disagree that no action is better than partial action. There are no doubt some people who are alive today who would personally benefit from such a pardon. There are also descendants who would benefit in intangible ways from a pardon of their now-deceased family member. Society also benefits when governments admit and, when possible, take action to correct mistakes.

Well, kinda. Some people who are gay will begin a heterosexual relationship merely to appear normal within society.

They don't really "swing both ways" - they are merely engaging in a facade to appease the masses. Those people may even have children within this relationship.

I actually have a female relative who ended up in such a situation with her husband. After 5 years of marriage and 2 children he explained to her that he just couldn't keep it up any longer (no pun intended) - that he was gay and he wa

Parliament can and should come out and say "Many years ago, our country adopted laws and policies which we now know were morally wrong. We apologize for those acts. We cannot undo all of the wrong that was done, but this is what we are doing: repealing all laws against victimless crimes, and releasing everyone currently imprisoned for victimless crimes

Legally, the prosecution did not commit any error in law and, if they had discretion to prosecute or decline prosecution, it's hard to make a case that they made an error in judgment.

Parliament, representing the people, did their job as the law reflected social norms of the time and it did not violate any "basic rights" of Englishmen as they were understood at the time.

What is needed in this an any other situation where a government, representing the people and acting in good faith, acts in a way that a future generation realizes is just plain wrong, is an apology from the current government "on behalf of" is predecessor and the people it represented.

Parliament can and should come out and say "Many years ago, our country adopted laws and policies which we now know were morally wrong. We apologize for those acts. We cannot undo all of the wrong that was done, but this is what we are doing...." followed by specific details such as nullifying criminal convictions, etc.

By the way, the text from the pardon refusal (taken from here [i-programmer.info]) says

I agree. What he did then was a crime, and a posthumous pardon (aside from being a huge waste of time) does not help the gay rights movement. Saying "we forgive you for being gay because you're a great Briton" is not an appropriate honor. Being happy that an unjust law has been removed is. A pardon is not an apology. It is very much the opposite.

. . . he needs an official declaration that he was never guilty in the first place, and should never have been prosecuted.

I think you're misunderstanding what the Judge is saying. Whether someone's guilty or not does not mean they were right or wrong, ethical or unethical. It means that they met an arbitrary standard based on three criterion; The state of mind of the actor, the actual act itself, and the motivations for doing so. The law is not about right or wrong, good or evil, it is about application of a defined criterion and determining whether it meets it or not. That's it. That is all.

The laws, even back then, were sufficiently complex and vague in many places that everyone commits a criminal offense at least once a day. In the United States, I have played a game with friends I like to call "Who Wants To Be A Felon" -- and then record their daily activities (for one day) and tell them, based on which laws, how many felonies they committed. The rules are: You can't just sit in your house and wait it out, you have to do something you'd ordinarily do on an average day (go to work, use a computer, eat breakfast, etc.) At the end of the day, I collect the cameras and if I can't find a felony you've committed during that 24 hour period, you get $500 bucks. Dozens have tried. Nobody's won so far.

That's the reality of our legal system. It's also why you should never, under any circumstances, talk to the police. I'm serious -- even during a routine traffic stop say "no comment" to every question except your name, address, request for driver's license and other necessary papers. That's why the much maligned 5th amendment was created: Not to protect the guilty, but to protect innocent people that might otherwise, through a lack of understanding of the legal system, wind up convicting themselves for a crime they didn't commit. And yet far too many people give up this right -- 86% of cases never go to trial because of confessions. And let me be frank: When you sit down in an interrogation room, you're going up against an olympic boxer with 20 years of experience questioning people. If you open your mouth, you are going to lose.

Now, with that detailed analysis of why our legal system is completely divorced from the idea of justice, and why the judge was totally correct in saying a pardon should not be issued, let's also consider that Mr. Turing is dead. He won't benefit from a pardon. But we can all benefit from a frank discussion about how society allowed a man to be tortured for being gay, and use that as a stepping stone to more progressive thinking. I think if Mr. Turing were alive, he would be pleasantly shocked to discover in how many places the tides of religious intolerance have been turned back and gays are now given most (if not all) the same legal recognition and protections as heterosexuals are. I think he would also be standing next to people like George Takei in saying that it does get better. And it does.

But only if we remember in the darkness, what we've seen in the light.

In the United States, I have played a game with friends I like to call "Who Wants To Be A Felon" -- and then record their daily activities (for one day) and tell them, based on which laws, how many felonies they committed. The rules are: You can't just sit in your house and wait it out, you have to do something you'd ordinarily do on an average day (go to work, use a computer, eat breakfast, etc.) At the end of the day, I collect the cameras and if I can't find a felony you've committed during that 24 hour period, you get $500 bucks. Dozens have tried. Nobody's won so far.

Though the rest of your post was rather insightful, this is wild hyperbole, unless you are playing this game only with a particularly lawless set of individuals.

Though the rest of your post was rather insightful, this is wild hyperbole, unless you are playing this game only with a particularly lawless set of individuals.

Well you don't have to take my word for it. How about a public defender [youtube.com] in California who now teaches at Harvard Law and a career detective with 20 years under his belt? This was the video that inspired the game I play, precisely because so many people think like you do.

People like you are in fact so resistant to the idea that they can easily be a criminal too, just like the ones they shun and look at disgust at on TV, that I put my money where my mouth was. $500 seems the magic number for people to give their belief about this aspect of the legal system a spin on the wheel as it were. And it's a real contest, make no mistake man. I take all the footage and logs of what they've done and ask a real and licensed public defender in my state to look over my work and tell me whether it would be actionable or not. A lot of times, I get the interpretation wrong, but never once have I failed to walk out of their offices with a yes vote.

Well you don't have to take my word for it. How about a public defender [youtube.com] in California who now teaches at Harvard Law and a career detective with 20 years under his belt? This was the video that inspired the game I play, precisely because so many people think like you do.

This is a 48-minute video of a lesson regarding the 5th amendment and "not talking to the police". It seems interesting though I do not feel inclined to watch the whole thing.

People like you are in fact so resistant to the idea that they can easily be a criminal too, just like the ones they shun and look at disgust at on TV, that I put my money where my mouth was.

A "crime" can be somewhat minor, though even with our obfuscated legal system it would be rare to commit a crime by accident. A "felony" is usually defined in the US as a serious crime that carries a prison sentence of over 1 year. I have definitely never committed a felony at any time in my life. (FYI - traffic law violations are no

I take all the footage and logs of what they've done and ask a real and licensed public defender in my state to look over my work and tell me whether it would be actionable or not.

'Actionable' != "felony" - you're moving the goalposts, so no wonder you've never paid out the $500. You're telling those that have taken your bet that they're going to be judged by one set of standards - and then actually judging them by a much less strict standard. Not to mention I seriously doubt that an actual 'real license

I personally don't see many felonies, but misdemeanors are commonplace. The most common I see are traffic violations (mostly speeding, failure to signal, and "rolling stops"), but other violations are often so trivial that people don't even realize they're breaking the law. Simple things like having a crack in a window or a garbage can turned over can be against local laws.

I personally don't see many felonies, but misdemeanors are commonplace. The most common I see are traffic violations (mostly speeding, failure to signal, and "rolling stops"), but other violations are often so trivial that people don't even realize they're breaking the law. Simple things like having a crack in a window or a garbage can turned over can be against local laws.

Though the rest of your post was rather insightful, this is wild hyperbole...

Go to youtube and watch this video [youtube.com], and then see if you still think it's hyperbole. A career defense attorney/law professor and a career police interrogator explicitly agree: you are committing crimes just going about your day to day life, and if you say anything to the police other than, "I have nothing to say," you may be condemning yourself to prison without even realizing you did something illegal.

So never, ever, ever, *EVER* talk to the police except for those very limited items you must divulge (whic

Though the rest of your post was rather insightful, this is wild hyperbole...

Go to youtube and watch this video [youtube.com], and then see if you still think it's hyperbole. A career defense attorney/law professor and a career police interrogator explicitly agree: you are committing crimes just going about your day to day life, and if you say anything to the police other than, "I have nothing to say," you may be condemning yourself to prison without even realizing you did something illegal.

The parent made a specific claim that people in general cannot go even a single day, with $500 on the line, without committing a felony. I stand by my statement that this is ridiculous hyperbole, and I feel that it harms a discussion of the actual issue of the obfuscation of law.

Can I try? I could use $500. If you follow me for a week will you give me $3,500? I am sure you could get me for some non-felonies on me as i do drive and am sure there are some things you could find there. But a felony? Doubt it.

Considering that things like "curfew" and "loitering" ("the act of remaining in a particular public place for a protracted time") are amongst the most commonly prosecuted felonies in the US, just to start with, I don't think it sounds too hyperbolic (e.g. http://felonyguide.com/List-of-felony-crimes.php [felonyguide.com]). Linger for a few seconds too long on the sidewalk while out to lunch? Sorry, guilty of loitering.

Considering that things like "curfew" and "loitering" ("the act of remaining in a particular public place for a protracted time") are amongst the most commonly prosecuted felonies in the US, just to start with, I don't think it sounds too hyperbolic (e.g. http://felonyguide.com/List-of-felony-crimes.php [felonyguide.com]). Linger for a few seconds too long on the sidewalk while out to lunch? Sorry, guilty of loitering.

Hyperbole! Please show a case of someone being charged and convicted for loitering after lingering a few seconds! The loitering laws of the US are primarily used to disperse gangs and I'm pretty sure that in most of the cases, the arresting officer has first ordered the suspects to disperse. The SCOTUS has already determined that charging people with "just hanging around" just isn't enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_v._Morales [wikipedia.org]

I'm neither American nor a lawyer and I'm in no way convinced that the

However controversial, the Justice Minister's point seems to make sense from a legal standpoint: issuing a pardon could be interpreted as the UK government accepting liability for these past events, in a similar way that issuing apologies to African countries for the triangular trade might.

. . . he needs an official declaration that he was never guilty in the first place, and should never have been prosecuted.

I don't know if there is such an instrument; but what we really need for this situation(and a fair few others) is some equivalent of a 'pardon' that constitutes a formal repudiation of the law in question.

"Pardon" = "Guilty; but we'll let it slide because something something or other." What we need is a "Law XYZ was total bullshit, even when it was still on the books, and prosecutions for violation of it, however formally correct, are similarly unjust."

It's perfectly correct not to pardon Turing, there's no evidence that the conviction was procedurally or factually troubled(and selective pardoning of cool guilty people is, if anything, an offense to justice itself); but it is worth noting that the 'crime' he was convicted of never should have been a crime.

What we need is a "Law XYZ was total bullshit, even when it was still on the books, and prosecutions for violation of it, however formally correct, are similarly unjust."

It's called "changing the law." Like, "Hey, you know how we used to think it was a good idea to say that X was against the law? Well, we changed our minds. We are repealing the law that makes X illegal. You can X all the livelong day if you please. You can X your friggin' brains out. We won't bother you about it. So if anything, good or bad, happens because you just go nuts X-ing from sunrise to sunset and into the dark of the night, c'est la vie and all that. We are OUT of the business of policing X." How

It wasn't wrong, it was just illegal. There's not really any such objective thing as "wrong" anyway, only what individuals or societies decide for themselves to be moral or immoral. The majority of people don't consider being gay to be immoral.

There's not really any such objective thing as "wrong" anyway, only what individuals or societies decide for themselves to be moral or immoral..

Now there's a can of worms.

The other way is a can of worms, too, since you'd then have to somehow determine which moral code was the correct one -- assuming that one of the existing ones is the correct one, which might not be the case.

I think that this is why a lot of places don't want to make marijuana legal. There's a whole bunch of people in jail (in some places more than others) for possession of marijuana , there's a whole lot more people who have criminal records for possession of marijuana. If they all of a sudden decide it's no longer illegal, there's going to be a whole lot of people who all of a sudden want their criminal records wiped clean. There's a whole lot of people who are going to want to get out of jail for things tha

The law isn't really about right and wrong though. The law is the law. If you live somewhere and choose to disobey the laws, you have to take responsibility for it. Changing the law isn't necessarily saying "sorry, we were wrong", it's more like "okay, the majority of people are voting for this, so here you go". I don't consider it unjust for those people to serve out their sentences. I'd hope their sentences aren't that big either since even cops and judges probably don't consider weed that big a deal.

Okay. So whenever an animal eats another animal - or a plant for that matter, that's "wrong"?

Most humans would agree that your standard is a good one to live by as far as treating other people goes. I do. Some don't. There is no objective truth to it. The natural world certainly doesn't comply to those rules. It's just something that we humans have made up because it results in a more productive society.

Prime Minister Cameron makes a general statement not just for Turing but for all those tortured and prosecuted under what we now rightly see was a terrible and cruel "law".
Society has moved on and a bold declaration that not just Turing but all those convicted of crimes of this nature are considered to be pardoned would solidify how far we have progressed.

When being gay was decriminalised, the existing criminal convictions were not stricken from the record, so there are still people in the UK with a criminal record for being gay even though it is not a crime.

Nice.

I believe a new law is being passed to unilaterally strick all convictions of such nature, leaving such people with a clean record.

When being gay was decriminalised, the existing criminal convictions were not stricken from the record.

So when being gay was decriminalized, but there was still a massive societal stigma against being gay causing many homosexuals to stay "in the closet", they would nevertheless have to answer "yes" to "are you a convicted felon?" questions on job applications and list their homosexuality conviction and thus out themselves to their potential future employer?

Holy fuck!

Does the UK have anti-discrimination in employment laws?

I believe a new law is being passed to unilaterally strick all convictions of such nature, leaving such people with a clean record.

The concept of felony is completely unrelated to the concept of federalism. The term originated in English common law.

Which according to Google still applied in the UK until 1967, but doesn't anymore. So yeah I guess it would be silly to ask that now! But is there any requirement to disclose criminal convictions? Or any circumstances in which criminal record is made available? That's really at the heart of the issue I raised in my post.

Some employers will ask you to go through a CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) check. This is common in the world of finance, or if working with kids. Basically it is you that receives a copy of the check which will list any convictions - there are different levels of check - some may miss off minor things, like say, police cautions for being drunk and disorderly, but effectively the copy you receive lists the criminal records stored on you.

It is then upto you to show it to your employer, if you refuse to disclo

... But as records of courts and justice are admissible, it can
easily be proved that powerful and malevolent magicians once existed
and were a scourge to mankind. The evidence (including confession)
upon which certain women were convicted of witchcraft and executed was
without a flaw; it is still unimpeachable. The judges' decisions based
on it were sound in logic and in law. Nothing in any existing court
was ever more thoroughly proved than the charges of witchcraft and
sorcery for which so many suffered death. If there were no witches,
human testimony and human reason are alike destitute of value.

Turing surely shouldn't be the only one. But he's a damn good catalyst to get things going to pardon everyone prosecuted under such an unjust law. Do you think this would be brought up at Slashdot (or elsewhere) if the article said 'We need to Pardon Bob Smith for having committed the crime of being gay'?

If pardons were issued for the Holocaust, it would not be issued on behalf of any individual German nor of the "current generation of Germans", it would be issued on behalf of the German government or the state itself, which is an institution that outlives individual people. Why should any individual German imagine that *Germany* apologizing incriminates them?

The Queen's job is conditioned upon her not actually doing anything. If she actually started to use the powers of her office... well, everyone loves the queen, she could probably get away with it. But the monarchy would be stripped of all power even on paper after that, and her successors would struggle to prevent a complete abolition.

I doubt that. The queen still retains ownership of a large portion of land in the UK, and leases it to the people for a small fee.

There is no legal obligation for the sitting monarch to do this, it's just tradition. The sitting monarch leases the land to Parliament which then leases it out to companies and citizens, and collects taxes on the land.

The queen uses the money she makes from the lease to live like a... well, like a queen.

I am about 40 years old, and for most of my life considered homosexuals to be somehow inferior with through genetics or lifestyle choice. My world view has changed quite a bit, mostly by seeing real-world homosexuals, and strangely enough a closeted homosexual who claimed to be "cured".

It is hard to put a date on when my view changed, but now I see how wrong I was and fully support same-sex marriage and make sure to show my support as a way of undoing some of the ignorance I helped spread.

In the same way, we have an opportunity to not just pardon Turing, but express just how wrong we were. It will never erase the harm, but it will help heal the wound.

As a queer person, thank you for A) being open to changing your mind and B) sharing that experience. As Dan Savage noted, most of the people who voted for marriage equality this past election were straight. I don't always agree with Savage, but here he was spot on: The LGBT community owes thanks to the straight allies, and I appreciate you weighing in on this/. discussion to speak your mind.

In contrast, my attitude hasn't changed much over the years of my own ordinary 20-year heterosexual marriage. It's summed up by a pretty famous quote by a politician in my country: "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." Furthermore, if people want to get married and take on the benefits and responsibilities that come with that kind of commitment to another person, I can't see how their gender enters into the equation. The government should recognize it regardless. In my country, they

I really do not get this "You must apologise for everything!" mentality that has sprung up over the past 15 years or so.

I'm from the UK. The UK has done some seriously horrible things in both it's distant and recent history.
While Turing is a personal tragedy, his story isn't even a blip on the radar of what has been carried out by my country in the grand scheme of horribleness.
Yes. Outlawing homosexuality is wrong. Leaving India, Ireland etc. to starve is wrong. Conquest at the barrel of a gun is wrong. Slavery is wrong. We get it. But, to be harsh, the current generation isn't really disputing any of that. Your beef is with the generations that have come before, rotting in their graves and if given their lives again, probably would have done the exact same thing.

What meaning does a pardon or an apology have if it is not from those that actually performed the act?
For it just smacks of the worst kind of tokenistic politics.

I for one am sick to death of meaningless apologising for the many and numerous mistakes of my parents, grandparents, great grandparents and so on.
I have enough mistakes of my own to be accountable for.

I think a better thing than a pardon, which is legally if not rhetorically problematic, would be a monument. This would be more meaningful.

It needn't be big, or central, or tremendously expensive. It could just be a quiet place people could go to, to pay their respects. The could read a bit of his story, and think about what he did, and about the other people these laws effected. Rather than being a divisive thing, it could be a place for healing or unburdening.

But, to be harsh, the current generation isn't really disputing any of that. Your beef is with the generations that have come before, rotting in their graves and if given their lives again, probably would have done the exact same thing.

Queen Elizabeth was crowned the year Turing was convicted. Now, the monarch is certainly not all powerful, but you can hardly say that the crime was committed by a generation of people long dead and buried when the head of state at the time remains the head of state today.

As for what's makes Turing such a special case that he personally deserves attention against a background of crimes committed to millions: He was one of the smartest, most influential people of his age, he laid the groundwork for modern computing, there is no telling what kinds of advances might have been possible in the world of computers if we had his insight for another few decades. And more than that, Turing was a fucking war hero. His work in code breaking and computer engineering saved countless allied lives during WWII. And how did his country repay him? Prosecution, insults, public humiliation, and finally castration. Because he had a consensual relationship with another man.

The point I was making is that 70 years isn't so far, the ideas and attitudes aren't that far removed from the present; in fact there is a significant minority who would see those laws reenacted if they could get their way. Think about it this way, there may not have been many people in power then in power now, but I can guarantee you that there are people who worked in those offices then that are running those offices now.

The government making an explicit declaration "the way we treated homosexuals was wr

Last I checked, there aren't groups of Romans saying they should really reconquer the Germanic regions. There's not many Frenchmen longing for the return of their military dictator. You know what there are though? Homophobes who would gladly see those laws put back on the books. Who would happily castrate anyone who performs a homosexual act. It's not just about apologizing, it's the government saying "what happened was wrong, and it will never happen again".

A posthumous pardon was not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offense.

Don't let bigots hide behind this kind of sophistry; forget a pardon; let's have parliament declare that the law was inhumane, unjust, invalid, and that all convictions are vacated.

Nope, I don't live in the U.K. and don't know the legal process enough to fill in the details. However, the U.S. and British system share deep roots, so I expect that our concept of vacating a conviction has some parallel there. Here, it is normally done for egregious legal error during the trial, but I am sure that it could also be legislated...

OK in 2012, everyone's cool with Turing being gay today...but honestly, when does this shit stop? Retroactive pardons? Retroactive suspension of the conviction and expunging of the record?

The problem is that the legal precedent stands and can be used to support future cases. I agree that apologizing to the dead is quite silly but changing bad legal precedent is an extremely good idea. The point is to prevent future acts of malice by the government. If we honor the contributions of the victim in the process then that is just a bonus.

'A posthumous pardon was not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offense.'"

Lots of things are criminal offenses that should not be. The fact that it may have been the law at the time does not make it in any way justifiable. A pardon would hurt nothing, cost (almost) nothing, and show that we've evolved. While I think that apologizing to a dead person is a ridiculous idea, the idea of overturning a terrible legal precedent is not silly at all. In theory this verdict could be used to support future government sponsored lynchings if it is not overturned.

A pardon doesn't affect legal precedent at all, since it's a special exception. Pardoning Turing could just mean he did important work unlike the typical gay who deserved to be punished; or it could mean that Turning was framed, and wasn't actually gay. Even the symbolic meaning is ambiguous, since while it draws attention to past injustice, it sort of nullifies it at the same time.

Yeah, that's why I think runaway slaves should be and forever will be looked upon poorly. I mean, they knew what they were doing was against the law. Harriet Tubman was just a lawbreaker and enabler for those criminals, plain and simple.
And Rosa Parks was just a troublemaker who deserved to go to jail.
And those stupid interracial couples daring to love each other when the laws clearly stated that wasn't allowed. Don't you know two consenting adults can't just go around having sex with whomever they want and think that the government shouldn't be punishing you for it.
(sorry I don't know British equivalents though I am sure there are plenty)

What makes Turing any different from any other person who was convicted of this offence back when it was illegal?

I'm aware of his work on the Enigma machines and he is quite rightly recognised for this, but a person's achievements should have no bearing on how they are treated in the eyes of the law. If we go ahead and pardon Turing, we must go ahead and pardon everyone else who was convicted under the same legislation.

Similarly, what makes the law against homosexuality any different or any worse than

> 'A posthumous pardon was not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offense.'

...but that's exactly what a pardon is for -- forgiveness of a crime. It's acknowledgement that a crime was committed, and that the crime is forgiven. How does "properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offense" have any bearing at all?

Turing doesn't deserve pardon.He knew the rules, he broke them anyways, he got what he deserved.Homosexuality at the time was a major social taboo and a criminal offense. The fact that it shouldn't have been the case is not the question. And of course, pardoning him and him alone would mean that the law doesn't apply to great scientists, a terrible message IMHO.

It is the shame that Turing had to die for this reason but wherever we do, it won't change the past.

It sounds like a lot of people are saying, "It was unlawful back then, but it is legal now, so he should receive a pardon!"
If that is the case, shouldn't the converse also apply? Should people be prosecuted now for participating in an activity that was legal at the time, but is no longer? I know that it used to be legal to drive 70 miles per hour on a highway near my home, and the speed limit is now 55mph. Should I now be issued a citation for each time I drove at the previously higher rate of speed?

Honestly, it depends on how the laws are written that legalize a former crime. It's perfectly possible (and I suspect this may be part of the Washington and Colorado initiatives, though I haven't checked) for a new law to state that a former law is repealed, and also that any prior convictions under the previous law shall be vacated.

IMO they seem to be an attempt to wipe history from the books and give everyone their kumbaya moment to hold hands and pretend everything is hunky dory. Unless the offended party is still alive, leave them on the books as a lesson to our children of what can happen when government exceeds its bounds.

Christianity, Islam and perhaps Judaism are about the only people that believe being gay is wrong as far as I can tell. These 3 religions basically worship the same god, and he hates gay people.

God doesn't hate gays, he hates some of the things they do. He hates some of the things you and I do as well. "Being gay" isn't a sin, having sex with another man is, and that's not nearly as bad as having sex with another man's wife. After all, that one's in the "big ten".

I have to say that your god is kind of a dick. I mean, he creates humans to be inherently flawed, and then when the original humans behave in a flawed manner as expected, he damns them and all of their descendants to eternal punishment

This was the conclusion I came to myself actually. It made it a lot less scary to realise that it all wasn't true anyway. Even if the Christian god did exist, he would not be worth worshipping.

It's kind of funny how when you do things with other people, or when given a challenge by other people, it often feels more meaningful and purposeful than it would have if you'd just decided to do the same thing of your own accord. I think of religion a bit like that now. If you're told that life has meaning, it's a l